The headline to the article stated, on the basis of information disclosed to the newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act, that the complainant’s total mileage (since taking office) equalled 4.5 round-the-world trips, and that his mileage claim for the month of August 2012 was for 6,247 km. The complainant, although he did not take issue with the accuracy of the figures, maintained that the analogies contained in the article were clearly designed to communicate to the reader that the expenses were inappropriate and, by extension, fraudulently and/or dishonestly claimed, and, for this reason, he said, the article was inaccurate and misleading. He also pointed out that all such claims by him were claimed on a strictly vouched, monthly odometer reading submitted by his official drivers and, as such, had only been claims for expenses he had incurred and to which he was entitled under Oireachtas guidelines.
The newspaper maintained that the level of such claims by senior politicians was a matter of considerable public interest, and that the Minister of State was, at the relevant time, the Oireachtas member with the largest travel and subsistence claims, which in its view served to emphasise the public interest underlying the article. It offered the Minister of State a right of reply, which was not accepted.
In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, the article itself, insofar as it was comprised of facts sourced under the Freedom of Information Act, could not reasonably be held to be inaccurate or misleading under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice. He was also of the view that the analogies to which the Minister took exception were a legitimate exercise of the freedom of the press as protected by the Preamble to the Code of Practice.
